Rosanna S. Crum v. Michael Thornsbury and Thomas McComas, etc.
15-1131 & 15-1219
| W. Va. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- Walter Eugene Crum, Mingo County Sheriff, was killed in the line of duty on April 3, 2013; funeral services were provided by Chafin Funeral Home.
- Petitioner Rosanna Crum alleges county officials (Hubbard, Smith, Baisden) and others (Thornsbury, McComas) promised to pay funeral and burial costs but did not, forcing her to pay the bill.
- Petitioner sued the officials and the funeral home (claims included breach of contract, negligence, detrimental reliance, tortious interference, and sought compensatory and punitive damages).
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the circuit court dismissed all individual defendants, finding no enforceable contract (statute of frauds/ lack of consideration), no duty for negligence, and no viable tortious-interference claim.
- On appeal the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the dismissals, concluding petitioner pleaded no set of facts establishing contract consideration, duty, or interference-caused damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of enforceable contract to pay funeral costs | Crum says officials orally promised to pay, she relied and incurred higher costs | Defendants: promise was a gratuitous gift, not in writing, no consideration | Court: No contract — statute of frauds/ lack of consideration; promise was unenforceable gift |
| Negligence for assuming and abandoning duty | Crum: officials voluntarily assumed duty, planned elaborate funeral beyond her means | Defendants: no legal duty created by mere assurances; plaintiff still liable to funeral home | Court: Dismissed — complaint fails to plead a duty element required for negligence |
| Unjust enrichment / quantum meruit | Crum: officials received public benefit (“glory”) from funeral without paying | Defendants: plaintiff disavowed unjust-enrichment; no benefit traceable to defendants requiring restitution | Held: Plaintiff did not plead viable unjust-enrichment claim; counsel disavowed it below |
| Tortious interference with contract between Crum and funeral home | Crum: defendants’ assurances induced funeral home to provide costly services | Defendants: plaintiff cannot both deny an enforceable contract with funeral home and claim interference; plaintiff never alleged specific increased items or reliance | Court: Dismissed — no prima facie interference shown (no clear contract/expectancy or resulting harm attributable to defendants) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (standard for de novo review of dismissals) (discussed motion-to-dismiss standard)
- Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., Inc., 160 W.Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (pleading standard: facts must show entitlement to relief) (cited for Conley standard)
- Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson, 230 W.Va. 281, 737 S.E.2d 550 (contract elements: competent parties, subject matter, consideration, mutual assent) (cited for contract requirements)
- State ex rel. AMFM, LLC v. King, 230 W.Va. 471, 740 S.E.2d 66 (contracts and consideration principles) (cited on contract fundamentals)
- Sturm v. Parish, 1 W.Va. 125 (promise without consideration is void) (historical authority on consideration)
- Torbett v. Wheeling Dollar Sav. & Trust Co., 173 W.Va. 210, 314 S.E.2d 166 (elements of tortious interference) (sets out prima facie elements)
- Carter v. Monsanto Co., 212 W.Va. 732, 575 S.E.2d 342 (elements of tort liability: duty, breach, causation, damages) (cited for negligence elements)
- Aikens v. Debow, 208 W.Va. 486, 541 S.E.2d 576 (duty requirement in negligence) (cited for dismissal of negligence claim)